summery of biowares qoutes (see botom of post for Disclaimer)
David Gaider
(TO COOL FOR SCHOOL)
in responce to this comment {Maria Caliban wrote..."If you stick your thumb up his ass, I win," is probably the most vulgar joke they can get away with. Sure, they'll have lots of sexual innuendo in Dragon Age III, but nothing is going to beat that level of crudeness. It's a pity really.}he put this pic http://i238.photobuc...IN_webready.jpg
(on dragon age Inquisition being to long a title):side note mosty just the Inquisition having four syllabels){Jerrybnsn wrote...It's a title with four syllabels in it. Everyone wil stil refer to it as DA "3". You still have a year to change it to three or less syllables.Glad to help you out here.}
This is a lot like the serious discussion that someone posted about how a credible fantasy world shouldn't have so many places with the letter 'r' in the name.
'Stop bickering' was not a suggestion.
{on feed back}
Heh. I think this is the first time on these forums someone suggests we shouldn't listen to the fans.
Suffice it to say that we do indeed want to engage the fans in a conversation. "Listening" does not mean we are sitting on the forums, waiting for the fans to tell us what we should make... as if we were writing down a list of story ideas and features, and had no idea of our own regarding what kind of game we wanted. I know some fans seem to think that's what listening is, but those who do probably have as much difficulty with the concept of communication -- meaning that their ability to influence the way we think is the same as their ability to influence the way anyone thinks; the principle is the same. Yelling and being obnoxious has about as much chance of doing that here as it does in real life... if such people know how communication works in real life, of course, I can't rightly say.
Yes, listening too much has its dangers... but so does listening too little. It's entirely possible that what a fan wants is simply not what we're going to do, period the end. It's also possible (even likely) that their suggestions lack the context of resources and business realities that we must contend with, and thus have limited bearing. But it's also possible that they have something interesting to say, and can provide food for thought. If they're satisfied with that qualification for our interaction, then I imagine so are we.
(ON VOICE ANTING)
(on turning off the players voice)
You mean simply turn off the player's voice? So you see the lips moving, but you don't hear anything?
No, sorry, I really doubt we would ever offer that as an option. We would only offer options that we could honestly look at and say "yes, this is something we think looks good and is a viable alternative to what we've presented". This is not something to which we could say that.
{BrotherWarth wrote...The idea of the lips still moving was just inteded to make implementing a silent PC option cheaper and easier. Plus, a lot of people who liked the silent PC in Origins hated the dead-eyed staring the Warden did when "talking."}
Because the voiced PC talks, there's a lot more screen time spent showing the PC talking... the visuals are designed to take into account the PC's participation, whereas with DAO we knew that wasn't the case. I think you underestimate just how much "dead time" you'd be dealing with, here. Either way, it's safe to say this is a non starter. Sorry.
{BrotherWarth wrote...Gaider still didn't say it was off the table. And I don't think Gaider would be the decision maker on gameplay mechanics since he's the lead writer, not the project lead.}
No, it's not my decision-- but I think I know what the answer would be, particularly as it affects dialogue and those are systems of which I have a lot of knowledge. If you prefer to look on that as wiggle room that leaves you hope... well, okay. Up to you.
(SIDENOTE FOR MORE STUFF ABOUT VOICE ACTING PLEASE GO TO THIS PAGE CUSE THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I'M GOING TO GO THERE ALL THAThttp://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/12615734&lf=8
(ON REVIEWS)
(on making fans cry)I would say "glee" is a good word, yes.
Even so, I'm curious why people tend to run with the assumption that we would repeat the same story elements. Yes, parents tend to be taken out of the picture à la the Hero's Journey, but insofar as we writers are concerned we'll move on to some other body part once the original gets too numb from all the punching. So asking us to not write the same story elicits a response which is generally "...okay?" Asking us to not punch you in the gut gets you a pat on the head and an "aww, muffin."-
{Hawkeyed Cai Li wrote...I'd just like to see a reconciliation, I guess. Or a happy family. Variety. And all that.}
Yep. Variety is good. And your gut's probably sore... time to move onto the shoulder.-
Lithuasil wrote...Just as long as you leave the kittens alone!
I might kill off one kitten... so long as you get to raise his traumatized sibling, until he grows up and becomes Batman. FOR VENGEANCE.-
If the notion is that we would have a wedding during the course of the game, and then you would move onto married life... no, I doubt we'd ever do that. If the notion is that the subject of marriage could come up, that is indeed possible and we've done it before, in fact. It really depends on the context of the game. Unless a marriage was important to the plot (like, say, the City Elf Origin wedding in DAO), it's something that will likely always be consigned to the "happily/unhappily ever after" part once the game is done.-
{Mary Kirby wrote...Oh, don't worry. We will throw all the punches. Punching come standard. Possibly, if you buy the CE, David Gaider will come to your house to punch you in person.}
I will also pet their hand afterwards, and coo to them softly to tell them everything will be better soon.
It's all part of the co-dependency thing we got going on here.-
Asking for it doesn't make it any more likely, either. I've already said that we will have a voiced protagonist and a dialogue wheel. If you wish both these things removed entirely, that's great... but it's also not up for debate. If you wish to discuss it, that's fine... but doing so with the belief that it will influence what is a fundamental design decision sounds like an exercise in frustration on your part.-
(on the leaks)jmadsen wrote...http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/DragonAgeIIIInquisition
Is this info legit?
The first point on not playing Hawke/Warden is correct. Everything else is either speculation or out of context.-
Heh. This is what I hear:(on winey fans)Dear BioWare: I don't know what Orlais looks like, or how you'll use it, but there are French people there and they're stinky. I've decided I want something else, which in my mind will look way better.
To whick I can only responsd: Thanks for the feedback. I guess we'll see? -
Wow.
Sorry, but that link... sure, let's reduce the characters to broad categories, and then if we squint hard enough it'll look like they actually fit in those categories (when, let's face it, many of them don't with any but the most cursory examination). And this is supposed to be profound information to whom, I wonder?
They're called archetypes. If you try hard enough, you can make any character fit into one. Someone breaks out the word 'cliche' in this context as if they've said something meaningful, as if the lack of archetypes would be either better or even possible.
I'm not going to stand here and suggest that any character we've written at BioWare is a model of brilliant originality... but if someone's going to criticize a piece of writing it would be excellent if they could manage to summon up a critique that manages to do more than provide the shocking discovery that archetypes exist. That would be nice, and thank you.
/end diatribe-
(on accents)Yes, it's interesting. We tend to use genuine accents whenever we can, though that's not always possible-- it's sometimes difficult to find someone with the needed accent who has both the voice we want (as in the sound of it, not just the accent), the acting ability we like and who is available. This is getting easier as we develop relationships with certain studios overseas-- for instance, it used to be a pain to record in England, but now it's actually our default and almost easier than recording in L.A.
As for the Orlesian accents, as I've said before if we have a game where a greater volume of Orlesian accents are necessary then we'll simply change our approach. We can have more varieties in the regional accents we use, as well as their intensity, since there's no need to highlight an Orlesian in such an instance as being somehow unique.
Does this mean there will be less people complaining about all the "fake" accents? Nah. Sometimes people have strange ideas about how an accent is supposed to sound. If it doesn't sound like they think it should, they think it's fake. It may very well be (chances are it's not), but that's also not necessarily a bad thing except in the minds of people who probably aren't expressing themselves very well. You don't need a justification for not liking how someone sounds, after all, regardless of how authentic their accent may or may not be.-
{Gabey5 wrote...I think people ae confusing fake accents with heavy or aristorctatic ones, that come across as exagerated. Having regional accents with less intensity seems like a good move. Lastly Zevran had a great voice actor. Went well with his character}
Yep. I didn't realize until I met Jon Curry that he was a tall, Nordic-looking man-- it was amusing, considering Zevran's appearance. Zevran was one of those situations where we turned down a number of actors with more authentic accents because they didn't have the sound we wanted.
As for the oft-maligned Isolde, her voice had the aristocratic quality we wanted-- not to mention the actress had stage training and could turn in the emotional performance we needed. The scene where she pleads for Connor's life still chokes me up when I hear it.
So, in both these cases, going for authenticity over other considerations wouldn't have given us what we wanted. Though it is a consideration even so, regardless of the fact that authenticity is something many people don't really appreciate like they seem to think they do.-
Wulfram wrote...I suspect it's more because they really liked Eve Myles but found locating people capable of doing welsh accents more difficult than they originally imagined}
No, we knew that getting a lot of Welsh accents would be difficult. Hence the Dalish use both Irish and Welsh accents.-
{katling73 wrote...Unfortunately that was quite jarring for someone like me who has an English background because the Irish and Welsh accents are quite different to my ears. I was fine with the Irish accents for the Dalish but when we ran into Merrill, it threw me out of any immersion into the game I'd managed to achieve and I was thinking, "Why is there suddenly a Welsh elf in the middle of all these Irish elves?" It would have been far better to keep them all Irish or all Welsh.}
And it would have been better if Carver and Bethany had accents from the same part of England as Hawke. Unfortunately, we can't always get what we want.
{And can I make a plaintive request that if we're going to have more of Orlais and more Orlesians, could you make sure their accents are genuinely French instead of having them sound like a bad imitation of Maurice Chevalier?}
You can request it, sure.
(ON CHARACTERS)(cullen)
{bob_20000 wrote...So what did he do? Why is he so sexy? What's the big deal? To me, he's a very blank, emotionless, zero-dimensional character. HOW IS HE SO CHARMING?}
1) Good hair.
2) Lots of imagination.
I sometimes wonder if these fans have developed Cullen into a character separate from the one actually in the game, but either way it's nice to see he has such ardent supporters. People like stuff, sometimes for reasons. Go figure.-
{EpicBoot2daFace wrote...The amount of gushing enthusiasm over mediocre characters seems to know no bounds here on BSN. Criticism of these characters would be far more beneficial to you and the others you work with.
The characters you and your other writers create are often just stereotypes with daddy issues. Almost all of them follow that formula.}
While I'm certain that reductionism might seem like a profound insight to some, just about any character can be reduced to a stereotype (or archetype, if one prefers). There's usually a point to such analysis, rather than the analysis itself being the point.
Insofar as Cullen himself, I don't think he's a "mediocre character". He's obviously hit a chord. The only part I find interesting is that there's only so much extrapolation that can be done with what's been provided-- it's like finding a 20-page essay written about a 5-page short story.
If you feel the characters we write aren't creative enough, however, then cool. More power to ya. If that summary of yours is meant to be an invitation to that other thread, however, then I think I'll pass.-
(Duncan){Aldaris951 wrote...Will we find out about Duncan's fate in dragon age 3?}You found out about his fate in DAO.
(Trista Faux Hawke wrote...pff. That's a vague answer. Why didn't he just say, "Duncan is dead.")
Duncan is dead.
{Wiedzmin182009 wrote...And where is the corpse?}
Where all corpses go. Corpse Heaven.
{MichaelStuart wrote...So Duncan is dead, the real question is how long before he comes back to life?}
I guess I could bring Duncan back to life, sure, if I really wanted to.
I do not. Occasionally Mike Laidlaw taunts me with Zombie Duncan (long story), but only to see me make The Face. This is not something that will ever happen. {Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...Um, no they don't. I killed Zevran in DA:O, Ander's died in Awakenings (my playthrough) and they came back.}
Zevran was not intended to come back. Evidently it doesn't matter how many times we bring it up, people will continue to think this bug was intentional. Which is too bad.
Anders and Leliana are both intentional, and while we explained how (or, in Leliana's case, will yet need to explain) that explanation is ultimately a ret-con, sure.
I am not nor will I ever ret-con Duncan's death. This isn't a subject that even needs to continue being discussed.
In fact, my answer on that is so definitive I'll simply close this down as having no relevance to DA3.
(the ogb)if you mean the so-called "Old God Baby" will exist, regardless of whether the player took the Dark Ritual decision in DAO or not-- I can categorically say that this assumption is incorrect.
(hawke -hero)If they return (and are alive to do so), it would be as an NPC-- and we've said previously that, if we include them, it would be important to do it right and not as an unsatisfying cameo that would just make the very people they're included for unhappy. If we can't do that, then we just won't have them appear. Whether they appear or not, however, the question of their disappearance will need to be addressed.-
What we're doing, exactly? That's a question I can't/won't answer, along with so many other questions people will have about DA3 at this point.Um, yeah-- my answer was with respect to the use of a protagonist between titles. If someone wants to argue the semantics of whether it's a proper "sequel" or "saga", or demand to know what our entire plan is for the overall story arch of the series-- and, not knowing it, assume that it can't possibly be epic because it's not what they want-- then knock yourselves out.
No, seriously, go hard. It'll give you something to do because this is something we won't provide clarity on even when the information on the game begins to flow. I totally hear the people who say they want more closure... and while I believe some people want a type of closure we're just never going to provide, that's not the same as there being none at all and no points of continuuity between stories. That is, however, just something you'll need to see for yourselves.-
The existence of unresolved plot threads is not a "cliffhanger". That is an abuse of the term (much like "cliche", "retcon" or "Mary Sure" in just about any Internet forum). A cliffhanger is when the central conflict of a story is not resolved. DAO would have been a cliffhanger if the story had ended en route to Denerim for the final battle.
You left wondering what happened to your Warden if you entered the Eluvian with Morrigan is more about closure... but that's another term that people like to invoke a bit too freely. An amiguous ending-- "walking off into the sunset"-- is often something that is done deliberately to allow the player to imagine where they went and what they did. Some people claim, however, that they will not ever get proper closure so long as there's still something they imagine their hero doing. They want to know what happened to them and Alistair, how they ruled Ferelden, where they went with Morrigan... if there's even a hint that it might have been something exciting, they consider that an unfinished story rather than a brand-new one.
But it would be a brand-new story, as the previous one was indeed resolved. The conflict ended, even if a new one began. The idea that we would have to either kill the hero or effectively kill all interest in their future in order to provide real closure is a bit ludicrous.
As for the territoriality involved in that character, as in the player feeling the character is "theirs" even if they've moved onto a new story and a new protagonist, that's probably inevitable. Short of skipping to another side of the world or another time, there's bound to be some contravention of headcanon ("I didn't imagine MY character doing THAT!"). Generally the rule is that we'll approach any use of the previous PC much more carefully than characters around the PC (like, say, Alistair or Morrigan). Inevitably it's possible we'll contravene the player's headcanon no matter what, and that's a possibility that exists the moment you stop playing the character, but we'll do our best to steer around it whenever we can.
(Rhys,Evangeline and Cole ) {idolion wrote...Ryce currently carries the Spirit that kept Wynne alive all through Origins, and assumingly is what stopped her from dying if a Warden tried to kill her.}
Assuming you are referring to Rhys and in fact read the novel, you would know that's not so. Wynne passed the spirit onto Evangeline, not Rhys. This is even stated explicitly, by Evangeline.
{Cole is an Abomination of a Mage who the Templars forgot in the Cells of the White Spire.}
There are many theories as to what Cole really is.
(ON FRIENDSHIP OR ROMANCE)
{Hey David, didn't you say at some point that you specifically wrote a male companion to be as subservient and agreeable as possible to the player, and he ended up being the most popular male character ever?}
Not quite. I hypothesized whether making a character completely servile and supportive of every single thing that player does would, in fact, make him more popular-- based on the fact that many of our more popular characters, like Minsc or HK-47 or, heck, even Varric-- don't actually oppose the player in any fashion.
The result was Deekin. You can make of that what you like.
{NovaBlastMarketing wrote...Well I am glad to hear that it will be in the game as per what you have been doing normally . I am concerned by your statement means that you are not going to try to improve on what you have been doing and add substantially more content , options and resources ,I Personally I would like to see the romance contented minimum of at least doubled to what you have done in previous games,}
Adding double the content would require it to be a much more important part of the game. We're not going to do that. If that's your estimation of what it would take to make the romances "better", then they're going to have to remain as good as they are now.
Which doesn't mean we won't make changes to how we go about them (as we always do, from game to game), but doubling the content certainly isn't on the table.-
{The Hierophant wrote...So i guess we are stuck in Limbo until then?}
Indeed. Until we do more than simply announce the game and actually start providing some info, 95% of the threads on this forum will be speculation.You're welcome.-
{Sylvanpyxie wrote...
Of all the writers to choose from, you had to pick the one that has publicly stated his hatred of romances?I've been hearing this a lot. I've known Chris Avellon to say he personally prefers "tragic romances" over the "happily ever after" type (a preference I share personally), but I've never known him to say with 100% conviction that he hates all romantic sub-plots.Can someone *finally* give me a link to confirm his hatred of romances? http://www.gamebansh...nterview.html}}
Considering that "Planescape: Torment" was born of Chris's hatred of fantasy tropes, I'd personally really like to see what could come of his hatred of romances. I say inundate the Project Eternity threads with romance requests until he succumbs and writes it personally, smoldering with hate the entire time.
It'll be brilliant.
{Dirty **** wrote...I feel like romances are good as icing but a lot of people seem to treat it as the cake...and from reading these forums i get the impression that the DA franshise is slowly being hijacked by people who would prefer a dating game rather than a fantasy rpg.}
I take it you don't give the developers credit at being able to discern for ourselves what might be a good idea? To be honest, this seems like the same kind of panicked thinking that prompts people to slap down ideas they don't agree with... because what if the developers get the wrong idea?
We know romances are popular. Not liking them won't make them less popular. Lots of threads by the same people also won't make us turn the game into the romance simulator. We're well aware the forums are a big fishbowl, and anything said here is taken with a giant grain of salt.-
This is incredibly funny to me, just because on the spectrum of "happy romance ending" to "OHGODOHGODWHY ending" I tend to fall more towards the former than most of the other writers. Which means I tend to end up taking that side of the argument whenever the other writers are involved.
I mean, Luke? Luke will cut you ****es. And he'll like it a lot. Mary will gleefully rain hellfire down on the fans in general, and they will love her and despair. Jennifer pursues grim finality with sheer determination, and Sheryl just sort of swings around her plot hammer like some writer version of Harley Quinn. It's frightening, most days, to think that I OF ALL PEOPLE end up taking the "gee, guys, let's not cut off both their legs, gosh" end of the discussion. It's a bizarre place for me to be.
Thankfully, Sylvia is now here to push things towards the Light Side. She likes puppies and wildflowers and sunshine. With Luke whispering in her ear, of course, it's only a matter of time...
{NovaBlastMarketing wrote...All i am really asking for is that Romance interactions join the plate even something like I presented in this thread would make a world of difference's}
Romances already take up a big chunk of content. They're not intended to take an equal place to the other pillars of the game, nor will they ever. We don't want to make them a bigger part of the game, so repeatedly suggesting how making them bigger would make them awesome is a bit beside the point.
(chrissicross wrote...OMG. Save her from the dark side then!!}
Meh. It's kind of fun to watch, actually. Eventually Sheryl and Sylvia will need to duel with light sabers over who assumes Luke's Mantle of Despair. I'm calling it now.
(Blacklash93 wrote...Romances have always been pretty bit-part and insignificant, despite what fans make it to be. What needs to be toned down are these thread.)
Suddenly there's panic on both sides. Some think that, because there's a bunch of romance-related threads (because what else do people have to discuss? Unless their panic is that people aren't ****ing enough any longer? HOW DARE THEY BE EXCITED!) that we developers will become mesmerized and suddenly alter the game to make it all about romance.
And then others think that, because there are people shouting to get rid of or sideline the already-optional romances, we will suddenly nod our heads and go "we always do what people on the forums tell us to, so okey-dokey!"
Breathe, people. If you panic like this now, how are you going to make it through the period that still remains before any real info comes out? Gosh.
(ON "SEXY WOMEN)
I get what you're saying. Personally, I have no problem with "sexy" female characters... so long as it's consistent for the character and there is diversity in the representation. One must have Avelines as well as Isabelas. And thus I think we've done pretty good on that front.
I don't think one would get much traction with the suggestion that there should be no sexualization, or defining where the line is. There definitely is a line, however, between exploitation and idealization... particularly when it comes to female characters (which are generally the former) and male characters (which are generally the latter), so it's easy to see why anyone might be sensitive to such depictions
(ON LGBT)
(scyphozoa wrote.lol, I love this topic. People who are uncomfortable flirting with a fictional character, but so narcissistic that they don't want to reject him.)
I suspect there's also an element of powergamers who cannot conceive of getting "negative points" for anything, despite the fact that you can easily earn maximum Friendship with Anders three times over during the course of the game.
Or at least this is their professed reasoning. I've always found it interesting how some people characterize Anders' brief disappointment as akin to shooting him in the head, or suggest that he is angry at you for the rest of the game-- or, alternatively, that he hits on you for the rest of the game even if you turn him down-- neither of which are remotely true... though I guess that kind of justification sounds better than saying "it made me feel uncomfortable".-
(TheWout wrote...That's not how it worked and you know it.And there is no need to play the homophobia card, since we are talking about a videogame.You fail to see the real problem, and that is that the character seemed to be written by a straight guy imagining what homosexuals are like. (Over eager and flaunting their sexuality from the get-go)}
Anders behaves the same way if the PC is female.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure this only happens if you historically take the more diplomatic options with Anders. He is hurt by being rejected, but he'll get over it.-
[side note i think i kinda love this man}
(on killing characters)
{RinjiRenee wrote...Good gravy another one of these "LET'S KILL _____" threads?
Why are you guys so obsessed with killing fictional characters? Jeez.}
I wouldn't worry about it. Chances are pretty slim that I'd put a character in the game solely because some psychopath on the forums demanded they be there in order to be murdered. Chances are far better, in fact, that such advocacy would entice me to include them and make them unkillable.
Actually, that's a lie. It wouldn't sway me, regardless. It's amusing they seem to think it might, however.-
for the record, there have been people who have hated characters-- for one reason or another-- dating all the way back to Jaheira and Imoen. The fact that characters get some hate isn't a strike against them. I've long-maintained it's better than apathy, and I've never encountered a reason to change that opinion.-
Wulfram wrote...Depends what that hatred is motivated by, surely.
Not really. People come up with stupid reasons to justify their dislikes all the time-- myself included. On the Internet, it's rather hard to tell whether someone is just being an ass, whether they have sufficient self-awareness to discern the reasons for their own dislike or whether that dislike is really as intense as it would seem from their post. Take your average 3-page venom-filled rant about a game... someone responds with "wow, well if you hate it so much why are you even here?" and they say "no, I really like the game those are just the parts I didn't like."
So it's good they feel enough about it at all to speak... but I don't trust their stated reasons any more than I would trust someone to discern how I personally feel about Battlestar Galactica based solely on hearing me rant about the ending (for the record: I love the series, but you wouldn't know that if you heard my rant). If we took everything negative as gospel, I'm pretty sure we would never do anything.
(on thedas)
There must be threads connecting a series-- but it needn't be the protaganist. For Dragon Age it's the setting and many of the events/characters within it.
Why do so many people assume otherwise? I imagine because there was a lot of PR for Mass Effect going on at the same time as when Dragon Age was created. I can't imagine what other "Bioware" legacy you could be referring to... as the only other Bioware game that even had a returning protaganist was Baldur's Gate.
Though, I suppose by the logic of some folks, even one game is enough to establish a pattern (like how some suggest that importing choices between games is also some kind of common CRPG mechanic when no games other than DA and ME have really even attempted it). And we did say that Dragon Age: Origins was a spiritual successor to the BG games (ignoring that BG also dumped every other variable), so fair enough... though it seems like a lot of assumptions to place on a game where the protaganist could rather definitively die.
At any rate, we'll say it again: DA is about the world of Thedas. Chances are there will never be a re-occuring protaganist between games, even if there is a common thread in the world and the plots that you've taken part in.
And thus the next series that BioWare makes can inherent all the assumptions from fans who assume it will work exactly the same was as Dragon Age. Good luck, imaginary next series! -
t's not a single story. Mass Effect was announced as a trilogy from the beginning-- a single story spanning three games. Dragon Age was not, nor was it ever intended to be (if it was, we probably wouldn't have allowed the protagainst to die or had so many "walk into the sunset" type epilogues). We didn't say it wasn't at the time, but that's likely because we didn't think we needed to, and undoubtedly didn't assume that anyone would take the messaging for Mass Effect to automatically apply to Dragon Age as well. Our mistake, perhaps?
Yes, there are plot threads remaining from both DAO and DA2 which will carry forward, but they do not require a single protaganist to resolve. I get that some people like the idea of it doing so, but there's a difference between wanting it and it having some kind of literary/gaming necessity.-
Yeah, the possible ret-conning of the DAO protaganist's death for the Awakening expansion was less than ideal-- and more related to a technical limitation than any kind of narrative intent. If someone wanted to play their DAO character in the expansion, then they were free to do so and make up whatever reasoning they wanted. That was just for the expansion's tale, and not intended to have larger implications.
Personally, I'd have been fine had we proceeded from DAO in the same manner as we did from BG1-- just have a set, canonical point from which DA2 would have started. And it was something we strongly considered. Hearing some people react in horror to that idea when it's suggested on the forums, and say things like no RPG would nullify your choices when it was really only Mass Effect which did it... well, I wonder how that would have gone. Either way, even with a canon ending I doubt we would have remained with the DAO's Warden as the PC. Loose plot threads do not constitute an entire story, short of those people who feel their personal plot thread of "I had a child with Morrigan" or "I'm ruling Ferelden at Alistair's side" should be the basis for an entire game, regardless of whatever anyone else did.-
Chris Priestly
(TO COOL FOR SCHOOL)
Lets stay positive here. If you want to complain about DA2, you can do it in the DA2 forums. And there are other threads about what people want to see in DA3. (Will Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka retirement from BioWare affect Dragon Age 3?)No it won't.While we're all sad to see Ray & Greg go, it won't impact the games that we're making.
(on what Lukas Kristjanson about this pic of a Griffon http://img2.hebus.co...25134555_64.jpg){Renmiri1 wrote...tehehe.. Why do I get this vibe from BW people that they love to mess with fans ? }
I've known Luke about 22 years now. It isn't just fans he messes with.
So petitions are the "in" thing, eh?
I didn't expect some type of fannish "in"petition.
(on dragon age Inquisition being to long a title):note mosty just the Inquisition having four syllabels)
{Allan Schumacher wrote...
It won't become "DAI?"}
I have a Welsh uncle with that name. (ON DA3:I)Sorry. Absolutely no hints until Mark Darrah allows me to give them
As Mark mentioned in his blog, we are taking the time. Thansk.
(side not poor dude if i got a doller for every time he had to say use the existing thread. read marks blog off topick, we'er not saying anything yet, show don't tell Please stay positive moveing to da3 boreds and lockdown thread i' have enogh to buy da3:I and then some)
(ON REVIEWS)
First - All reviews are honest. I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews. If they did, and it ever was proven they did, they would kill their business. It is not worth a review site the small amount they would be paid by a company compared to what they earn as a business.
Second - As Ninja Stan mentioned, all reviews are subjective. What is "good" to you, may be "bad" to them and vice versa.
Third - There is not a 100% adopted scale of what is good or bad. No one says "This gets a 7 on the Richtor scale" or similar as there is no standardized system of reviews. 5 stars, thumbs up, 7/10, etc. Different people may intend to give the exact same critique, but their scale means it is a 90% game whereas the other scale it is a 3.5/10.
Personally, I NEVER listen to just one review. Sure, there are some critics or sites I trust more than others, but I still prefer to use aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritc or whatever. And even then, I still use it as a guideline. "Hmm... that game is only getting 50% rating. Yet, I personally love that sort of game. I may get it anyways" or "Even though reviews are giving it 98%, I don't really play that sort of game. Pass." sort of thing.
As customers, we should all be aware of what we are buying. Ask your friends. Read the reviews. Heck, rent the game (if you can find a store that rents games still) before you buy. Educate yourself before you put down your money.
(ON THE LEAKS)
Never trust an encyclopedia that allows morons like me to write our own "facts".
Lets not perpetuate misinformation.
No, we don't need to share false & expired info. It only propegates incorrect information being passed on about the game.(on characters)
I'm not saying whether Morrigan will or will not be back, but I would wait for better confirmation from a source than just Wikipedia.
Never trust an encyclopedia that allows morons like me to write our own "facts".
Mary Kirby(on sad stuff){Mel_Redux wrote...I'm all for this angle, actually. For me personally, a story's not good unless it punches me right in the feels. Not the good feels, the bad feels. Happy endings/stories do nothing for me. But a story/ending that sends me through a range of emotions....rage anger despair woe happiness depression....that's a good story. I think I might quite like a wedding that ends in death, murder, and betrayal. AND WEIRD I'M A WOMAN AND WOULD RATHER HAVE BLOOD AND GORE THAN PUPPIES AND BUNNIES.}
That's why I love you so much Bioware. You never fail to punch me right in the feels. You punch me real good.}
I hereby name you my favorite forumite, Mel_Redux.
{Mel_Redux wrote.Does that mean I get to request more punching?}
Oh, don't worry. We will throw all the punches. Punching come standard. Possibly, if you buy the CE, David Gaider will come to your house to punch you in person.-
(on characters)
(on Leliana)She may not know where the Warden is, but she knows exactly where all their eyelashes are.
{Question is in the title. It's a simple and fundamental question. A beautiful question that gets down to seat of what we love about Dragon Age. I believe the community supports great butts, and I believe that mages have great butts. I believe in mage pants.Do you?}
You know, I read this and initially thought you were asking for a mage character named Pants. I think I need more coffee. Also, I am now going to see if I can work that name in somewhere.
(on Anders}{Vandicus wrote...While Mr. Gaider is in the mood to confirm not-ambiguous character deaths that could theoretically result in ressurection/reappearance, is it intended for the Anders death choice in DA2 to stick?Its quite clear that we kill him in DA2, but with the explanation for how he came back before(Justice possessing corpse), its possible for him to come back again, assuming that Justice was not forced back to the Fade when Anders was knifed. So could we get a confirmation of whether or not this possibility is being left open?}
If you killed Anders in DA2, he is dead.If you didn't, he's alive.
(ON FRIENDSHIP OR ROMANCE)
{EpicBoot2daFace wrote...It's just the amount of romance threads are ridiculous. Why not make an official romance thread or something?}
The game has only just been announced, and so far, the only things revealed have been the name and the engine. There's not much for people to discuss apart from their wishlists. Once some actual features are announced, I'm sure you'll see dozens of threads disecting those instead.
{argan1985 wrote...So I'm a "whiny fan" because I express my opinion on what appears to be a bad trend? I am sure they will take the majority of the opinion of the fans here into consideration.}
We understand that not all our fans want romance in their story, which is why they have always been optional. I would really not worry that romances will impact the core gameplay experience. I know this is not evident to those looking on from outside, but from a development standpoint, not all zots are created equal. Romance content is created exclusively by writing and cinematic design. None of those people work on the combat rules or encounter designs or level design. A writing zot is not equivalent to a level art zot or a system design zot. There are trades we can make to lighten the load on another department, but this is not actually one of them.
Sheryl Chee(TO COOL FOR SCHOOL){The Uncanny wrote...It must be Sheryl on writing duties or I'll cry or something.}Awww... *pats*
(ON FRIENDSHIP OR ROMANCE)
{David Gaider wrote...I mean, Luke? Luke will cut you ****es. And he'll like it a lot. Mary will gleefully rain hellfire down on the fans in general, and they will love her and despair. Jennifer pursues grim finality with sheer determination, and Sheryl just sort of swings around her plot hammer like some writer version of Harley Quinn.}
Really, what's the point of creating characters if you can't make them miserable?
M25105 wrote...
Why do you have that avatar Sheryl?
Because I'm actually a talking dollar bill. Now you know.
(side not girl your so fing cool)
Tonia Laird
(ON FRIENDSHIP OR ROMANCE)
{olaLei wrote...David Gaider wrote...chrissicross wrote...OMG. Save her from the dark side then!!Meh. It's kind of fun to watch, actually. Eventually Sheryl and Sylvia will need to duel with light sabers over who assumes Luke's Mantle of Despair. I'm calling it now.
What about Tonia? Is she part of the dark side? Or does she use the force?}
I enjoy the misery of others, as most writers do.
Sylvf
{chrissicross wrote...OMG. Save her from the dark side then!!} {David Gaider wrote...Meh. It's kind of fun to watch, actually. Eventually Sheryl and Sylvia will need to duel with light sabers over who assumes Luke's Mantle of Despair. I'm calling it now.}
Man, I don't like where this is going.
John Epler(TO COOL FOR SCHOOL)If you'd like to participate in a constructive fashion, you are more than welcome to do so. You don't have to be positive, just polite and attempting to engage in actual discussion.
If you'd like to try and win 'points' in some bizarre game in which you are the only participant, I suggest you go elsewhere. Thanks
Discussing things in a civil manner will keep the thread open, and I see no problem keeping it open in the meantime.
Threads don't need to be only "positive" in that if someone has criticisms towards DA2 or DAO, that's fine. Being civil is key, and that goes for people that decide to pile onto someone that IS being critical or negative.
Also, if I see a topic supporting something I don't like (a particular character as a LI for example), I just don't participate in that discussion.
Hey, guess what! 'If you have an opinion that's not the same as mine you're stupid' is not an argument that is going to let you stay around these forums.
Civility is not a difficult concept for most of us - clearly some people have a problem with it. Those people will be given time to discover how it works.
I encourage all posters to do the same.
We are not doing topics targeting specific individuals, sorry.
If you don't like that aspect of the rules, I invite you to start your own web forum, but it's always been this way and always will be this way.
Ah, the infamous 'COD' quote. Let's clear up what was actually said.
What was said was along the lines of 'there are a lot of RPG elements in COD, and a lot of the people who only ever really play COD and a couple of other games might enjoy our games - we can use those commonalities to draw them in'. What folks heard, of course, was 'we don't care about RPG gamers, we just want people who play COD because there are more of them' which, of course, isn't true in the slightest.
And it's not an unfair sentiment at all, really - one of the biggest things that pulls people through COD multiplayer is the carrot of levelling up. Prestige was one of the most cynically brilliant ideas I've ever seen in regards to keeping people engaged with your product and only your product.
Let's put the idea to rest, however, that what we were saying was anything other than 'people who don't think they like RPGs might be surprised and find that they actually like them. A lot of people play COD, which has some light RPG mechanics, and we can use that commonality in such a way as to entice them to try our games.'
(ON FEED BACK)Good feedback guys. Don't want to go into the specifics of each idea, but it's something we've been looking at.
One of our goals for DA3 is to adopt a 'show, don't tell' attitude when it comes to promoting the game pre-release. That's why we're not blitzing you with tons of pretty (and contextless) screenshots at this point in time - because we're not ready to show you what you want to see.
Undoubtedly this will lead to a lot of the opposite sort of complaint - that we're simply not showing enough. That's fair, but I think it's better to have a slower trickle of information at first as long as everything we're showing you folks is, in fact, 'real'. We feel our work speaks for itself, and we want to make sure that we're at a point where we can show you things in context that allows them to speak for themselves.-
Transparency is great, and good, and it is definitely something that's on our radar for Dragon Age 3. As has been mentioned previously by Mark and others, we're adopting a 'show, don't tell' approach for DA3, part of which will be providing context and showing off parts of the game/development that we think you'll want to see.
Are we ever going to be completely transparent? No. Game development involves a lot of things changing behind the scenes, and dangling a piece of candy in front of you and then saying 'oh, sorry, you can't have that candy because we realized we don't have the resources to give you that piece of candy as well as all the other candy we want to make' isn't particularly useful. Things get cut, things get added back and things get scaled up or down depending on what resources are available and whether they make continued sense in the grand scheme of things.
This is not going to please everyone. That being said, there are people out there who not only want but feel that they deserve to know every detail about the development process, down to the exact dollar figures we spend on catering or outsourcing. That's never going to happen. But more transparency? I think so. That will come once we have more to discuss, though.-
Showing you what we mean when we discuss a particular feature (in this example, combat) with an actual working encounter is exactly the kind of thing I would expect to see going forward. Like you said - saying 'preparation is important!' and then inundating you with a hundred pretty screenshots isn't really all that helpful, as we're not telling you anything even remotely concrete. Running through the various systems and parts of the game over the months to come, including talking with the people responsible for their implementation and high-level talk from Mike, Mark & co is a lot more useful.
And we -will- be talking in greater detail, but just not quite yet. When we do talk, though, we'll be doing more than blitzing you with PICTURES PICTURES PICTURES and sound bytes.-
@Sylvius - There are, for sure, certain people who would love to have a detail-by-detail breakdown of our decisions - motivations, reasons, costs, etc. That's never going to happen, for a variety of reasons. More detail on what sort of game we're making, though, including how we're building the game and why we're making certain overarching decisions? You'll likely hear more of that than you have previously. But rather than showing the decision from inception to completion, we'll be more likely to show you a feature and then say 'okay, this is why we're doing it/what it accomplishes/what we hope it also does'. This only gets you so far back up the chain, of course, but unfortunately I doubt this will ever go quite far enough for your tastes.-
There's also a problem in that you really only get one first impression. If we show you a feature that's not really done, and part of it doesn't look great - even if we show you that feature two months later and it looks significantly better, there's a chance that whatever your perception was of the feature initially is going to colour how you see it. Or, to put it in more concrete terms - if we show you a combat encounter but a bunch of features aren't quite working and it kind of looks like a mess, even if we show you a highly tactical encounter two months later, that's two months where you assume that DA3's combat is a gong show. That's not even getting into the idea that 'oh, well, we saw a crappy one and a good one, but I bet the crappy one is the more prevalent'.
That's not saying we're going to wait until sometihng is 100% polished and ready to go before we demonstrate it, but we do want to be closer to 'done' than 'prototype' when it comes to a lot of this stuff. -
(ON CHARACTERS)
(on lgbt)
let's try to avoid suggestions that 'oh well gay/lesbian people have X personality trait/dress like Y/like Z', as the amount of influence that someone's sexuality has over their personality beyond 'they are attracted to gender A/B' is nil, and suggesting otherwise comes troublingly close to trying to establish them as a specific 'other', rather than as just people like everyone else.(on ****** toggle)Not going to happen.
We are not going to support the viewpoint that same sex content is something to be avoided. I don't even know what the romances are going to be at this point, but I feel entirely comfortable in stating that, as always, the way to avoid that sort of content will be to tell a character 'I'm not interested'.
I can't say much about DA3, but I -can- tell you that this is not on the table, nor will it ever be.(sidenote dude your awesome)
(ON COMBAT)
Finishing moves are very, very expensive content to create - even the Legacy finishing moves, which all used existing combat animations, took a total of about three weeks to produce (and that's 12 hour days, plus weekends). If I had the choice between reflecting the player's class/weapon or reflecting their personality, I'd choose the former - it's a better application of limited resources.-
I should also add that, if we do choose to do finishing moves again, we would probably only do it for the absolute last creature of a group or for very specific situations where it makes sense. Having your character dramatically stab an ogre in the face was swell, right up until all of his buddies made mincemeat of your party because the guy you rely on to tank was busy being dramatic-
Mocapping entire scenes is a great idea - but it's not really practical in our case. Where Uncharted and Last of Us have a big advantage is, simply, in quantity. The entirety of their cinematics/conversations (at least in the Uncharted games - I can't speak to Last of Us in quite the same way) total around, maybe, an hour and a bit? Thereabouts, anyways. Whereas the entire cinematic content of an average BioWare game (post-KOTOR) is much closer to the 50-60 hour mark. That's including branching, minority content, etc, which is why you only see a fraction of that per playthrough.
Mocap is not cheap. Animator time is also not cheap - and as such, we have to use the same animations in multiple places in order to finish the massive amount of content we have on a game-by-game basis in anything approaching A) a reasonable amount of time and
without blowing our budget (and, for that matter, the budget of our next six projects) completely out of the water.Now! That being said, we have a goal of replacing a lot of our more common animations with new ones, and mocapping some new basic gestures. But, just as a result of how much content we're building per game, you are always going to see some animations repeat. Yeah, that means that we take a bit of a hit to the cinematic quality of our games, but the only real 'solution' would be to shift to completely linear experiences with minimal conversations/dialogue, and that's not really a trade off we're going to make.-
(ON CUT SCENES IN FIGHTING)
That comes with its own problems, though - I didn't like doing the finishers in cutscene because it completely pulls the player out of the experience. Honestly, the less often a player ends up in a conversation or cutscene, the better. Not only from a purely player experience point of view (not wanting to feel like you're 'watching a movie' is a criticism that we see, and fair enough), but also from a designer standpoint - the more often you're pulled out of gameplay, the less impactful those moments become.
There's also a logical weirdness that comes up when we play finishers on mooks - if I can use my two daggers like scissors and cut off this guy's head, why haven't I been doing it all along? Seems like it worked really, really well, so why am I using any other ability?
(ON FROSTBITE)
Engines don't really have a lot to do with the kind of game that's being made. Engines handle a lot of things behind the scenes - the example of visuals was already used, but it's more than that. Engines can handle how animations are handled, how data is stored and accessed, how assets are treated. Certainly, Frostbite 2 has, thus far, been primarily used for FPSes, but there's a lot of stuff it does that is simply going to give us the ability to do a lot more than we have previously - not just graphically.
The thing is, though - this is not a sign that we're shoving everything into overdrive action mode. We're working with the creators of this engine, and we've been building our changes from the ground up. This means that we don't have limitations in terms of things like customization that are imposed on us by the way the engine was originally created. Gameplay demands can drive changes to the engine, versus the engine limiting what we can do in terms of gameplay.
Hope that's a bit better of an explanation.-
BF3 being more realism-focused does not necessarily mean that DA3 (or any other games that use the engine, for that matter) have to also look more realistic. Really, the only thing you're going to see as a 'BF3 feature' in terms of visual style is that the lighting engine is significantly better than what we had previously and allow for more nuanced lighting, like in BF3.
Visual style will be derived far more heavily from texture and model choices rather than the engine being used. As much as I've argued for it, you will likely never fight a dragon from the cockpit of an F-35.-
Allan Schumacher
(to cool for school)
Since you're going to nitpick a comment I made to support your assertions, I'll be taking a break from this forum.-
I'll not have the words of myself, nor my colleagues, used against us because you are evidently failing at understanding the context of them and are looking at distorting comments to support the perspective you already believe to be true.-
Whether someone does or does not like something is unfalsifiable, so we won't bother going into whether or not someone is just right or wrong in how they feel, right everyone!?
Just a reminder to not tell people how they should or should not "roleplay" and certainly to never tell someone that they are roleplaying "wrong" or anything like that.-
I disagree. Every generation, people have said that the cutting edge is super duper realistic, and that they'll never look outdated.
I'm willing to let this thread slide in light of recent mudslinging, as the point in the OP is perfectly fine and valid. And it's on BioWare to prove him wrong when we ship. Frankly I personally encourage responsible purchasing, even if it will affect me financially
Having said that, I'd rather not turn this into a mudslinging match between some sort of objective "was DAO/DA2 better than the other" and so on.
To use the OP, batlin clearly feels it wasn't (and neither was ME3 or TOR). Others can come in and agree, but this thread goes no where if the discussion devolves down into bickering over how one other person is wrong about gauging the success of the game.
EDIT: Note that I'll be deleting future posts that are just blatantly snide. This won't be a thread where you can come in a post a glib remark. If you wish to share your perspective about how your trust in BioWare is shaken, do so in a way that doesn't make me grate my teeth. I am getting my bottom set of braces put on this Friday and I'd like to not have to get an entire new mold done when it's not necessary!
If you want an example for what's appropriate, see the OP's post.-
There's better ways to express ones' opinion that coming in with a molotov cocktail and smashing it onto the ground and seeing who all gets caught up in the fire.
(on spoilers)
We try to keep spoilers out of forums marked, no spoilers allowed.
If this thread was in the Spoilers section, then there's not much we can do about that.
(on dragon age Inquisition being to long a title):side note mosty just the Inquisition having four syllabels )It won't become "DAI?"
"Mor-Ro-Wind.
That's three. That works.
Bal-Durs-Gate. See?"
Since I was recently discussing these games:
Arkham AsylumArkham City
{"Plus, I can't seem to get that dang Mel Brooks song out of my head after I say it."}
You're just giving us incentive to keep it now!
It used to be an annual thing for me to say "Graphics can't get any better than this" as I was continuously blown away.I never really understand the idea that certain topics specifically are mature or not.
Whenever I see the idea come up I can usually expect to see people list things like rape, incest, torture, and so forth. It seems that people equate taboo with mature. It seems to me that whether or not a subject matter is mature depends more on how it's discussed.
I could have a mature presentation of friendship, and how that pertains to life and what social relationships mean to each other in the world of Thedas.
Or even death. Death never comes up, but for me it was arguably the most maturing moment that had happened in my life when I lost my brother when I was 13. Death happens in spades in video games though, and I wouldn't say it's typically dealt with in a mature fashion (not that that's a bad thing. I just blew up 4 tanks in World of Tanks and it was fun!). But I certainly see the way that Mother Amell treats the loss of her child and it strikes up empathy in me because I can understand, on some level, how that feels. The irrational anger and mood swings and all that. Just as an example.-
Everyone has their own pet peeves and he's free to express them here without attack on his character, though, right everyone?
(if the game bombs)Some people will be disappointed. Some people will be strangely happy. Not a thread that will really go very far.
(Will Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka retirement from BioWare affect Dragon Age 3?)I don't think anyone should worry about the financial status of Ray or Greg as they move on in life.
(on talking well having sex)
Eh, now that everyone has gotten this out of their systems...
I suppose I haven't consulted other people regarding it, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, I'd actually bet money that this doesn't happen. I'd like even like borrow money from a loan shark and stuff...
(THE DIALOGIE WHEEL)
This issue has been raised several times, but it's what we still want to go with.
(ON CINEMATICS){Beerfish wrote...Cinematics are great. I like them but they need two things. 1) Skippable so that in subsequent replays you do not have to view them.2) Never put them as a prelude to a major battle with out a save game after them. Getting your rump whipped on major battles and having to redo each long cutscene before hand was highly annoying in ME.}
If #1 exists, isn't #2 less of an issue?
For any that may be interested, I did follow up with my team (I'm the QA embed for the Digital Acting team) about the ability to actually pause the game during conversations and cutscenes and it has been tracked as a task.
No hard promises as work always gets triaged and maybe something happens and this is deemed less important when push comes to shove, but it is tracked as an explicit feature request.Cheers.Allan
{Anyone else get a little rise of panic coming up their throats whenever a developer uses a word like triage?Not trying to bust your balls Allan, but its a little early to be talking like that...The main criticism I heard back when DA2 was released is that it felt unpolished, probably because of the (unfortuantely necessary) triaging you're talking about.}
I use the term simply to state "Nothing is confirmed."
Everything is prioritized. "Triage" is literally what we call a session where a group of people get together and look at the state of the project. In order to deliver on various milestones, we see where things are going. What's going well, what's the problem areas, and so forth. They happen whether the project is 2 years from ship or 2 months from ship. As QA, the "triage" group affects me because they look at bugs and assess ones that have a high bug weight as well as ones that have been open for a long time. They have a more holistic view of the project so they can see that Bug X is affecting teams 4, 2, and 5, so it should be taken care of before Bug Y. And so forth.If people are going to take my words and panic about them though....I could have used a different word. Prioritized maybe? The specific feature in question is deemed "low risk" as well as "low priority." Meaning that adding the functionality poses little risk in terms of complexity (ease of implementation) and potential for affecting other systems. It's low priority because right now we're busy working on other core features for cinematics. What's listed as a "core feature" also evolves through the scope of the project, as new requirements are put forth when people realize the system is either missing something, or just an outright new feature is requested.tl;dr: Pausing in cinematics is a known feature request. Whether or not it makes it into the game is unknown at this time.-
(ON LEAKS)
{I read a leaked spoiler about DA3 here a while back that apparently confirmed it as a prequel to DAO. True or False?}
False
Modifié par Quicksilver26, 27 septembre 2012 - 03:51 .
Retour en haut
